A vote for Kerry is an admission, conscious or not, that one cannot fend for himself or stand up to those who attempt to enslave, to any degree, their neighbors in the world. The vote for Kerry is borne from fear and pessimism. The vote for Kerry is a self-imposed prison.

A vote for Bush is the opposite of this in all respects.

A vote for a minor-party candidate is a myopic self-delusional pipe dream in a mind incapable of understanding why it believes what it does.

You are a true believer. I hate to pick a fight as I will be enthusiastically pulling the lever for W next November, but:

A libertarian (little-l for me always) case can be made that a vote for President Bush is not "the opposite." Again, I support W all the way but I have not forgotten steel tariffs, the farm bill, my buying prescription drugs for Warren Buffet, unprecedented Federal involvement in education (with little meaningful reform) and an endorsement(if tepid) for the Federal Marriage Amendment.

JK, buddy, I know you mean it as nothing but a complement but the term "true believer" has a rich tradition as a term of faith. My principled support for W has nothing to do with faith on my part, religious or otherwise.

On steel tariffs, the farm bill, medicare drug plan and education funding you seem to ignore the fact that there is nothing new about these policies in our mixed economy. W didn't invent pork, he only tried to shift more of it to Dem causes than previous Republican presidents have. It may have been a misguided effort, but at least he's trying to "win hearts" if not minds.

I've had this debate with Libertarians and libertarians before: I'll bet you $1000 every Presidential election year for the rest of our lives that the winner will be either the Republican or Democrat candidate. I'll even give you 4 to 1 odds. Unless you're willing to take this bet I stand by my claim that George W. Bush is the practical opposite of the Kerry attributes I listed.

A vote for W is a vote for the principles of self-sufficiency, self-defense, confidence, optimism, and liberty, to whatever extent those principles can be achieved in our political system.

I'm tempted to say "you win." There is certainly a clear choice, and President Bush does seem opposite to Senator Kerry in every field you enumerate.

Your bet intrigues me. The end conditions are difficult to define: one of us is dead, pay up! But 4 to 1 against a new party label is tempting. Even though they avoided the Dean catastrophe, I think the Democrats are a non-unified group of factions. I could see the DLC types starting a new party and courting the McCains and Chafees and Spectors (Arlen, not Phil). Maybe not as good as 1 in 4...

As a liberal (small l ?) I say balderdash. Wasn't it you JohnGalt that was recently decrying the demonization of George Bush by the "ABB" crowd? If I vote for Kerry it will be with no fear or pessimism. Kerry and Bush may be the only practical options, but they are by no means opposites, even being extremely partisan about it I would say they are 50% the same. A new party with McCain, Chafee and Spector sounds interesting. Let me know how the bet goes, but it looks to me like John has the upper hand on this one, doesn't a third party candidate have to win every 20 years just for JK to break even?

No breaking even here: winner takes all (and the loser is dead...) But I agree 4 to 1 isn't enough.

McCain, Collins, Chafee. Bayh, Lieberman...I dunno Silence, folks do love moderates but I am more comfortable with the intrinsic balance of opposition. I see the moderation as weak, luke-warm and devoid of big ideas.

I admit that 4 to 1 odds are closer than I think the chance of a minor party President, but I've got an aversion to risking higher multiples of cash. Let's just say I think it's nigh-on impossible. The two party system is self-reinforcing, and I think this is good. It results in focus instead of randomness. The primaries represent, essentially, two n-party elections for the 2 candidate runoff called the general election. I think the minor party candidates should have to include themselves in one of the primaries... or BOTH! (I also think the parties should be renamed the Individual Party and the Collective Party, and that the national income tax filing and general election events should be combined into one, but I digress.)

Reread my comment. I never said Bush and Kerry were opposites, I said they were on the opposite sides of the atributes I listed. As for the lack of fear or pessimism in your vote for Kerry, I already allowed for the fact that some Kerry voters will not be conscious of their motives. But how else would you describe the mentality that succombs to the theory that the role of government is to feed, shelter, educate, doctor and love us?

BTW- I don't get the "dead" thing. I think you misunderestimated me JK. I only proposed that the bet be agreed to continue forever or until one of us dies, whichever comes first. The payoffs would occur after each election.

Mea culpa! I misread the rules of the wager.

No. I'll not take the bet but I do appreciate your defense of the two party system. I agree with you, it seems to work very well in the USA.

I agree with the two party system for the "big tent" reason. With only two parties, a simple majority is required to win. (Yes I know that the electoral college doesn't require a majority of the popular vote, but winning without a majority is very rare.) Thus the two parties must have "big tents" to win an election. If the parties split into more than two it allows all the parties to be more extreme.